Re: [Evolution-hackers] PIM application suite

On Pre , 2004-04-16 at 17:01 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
> Hi Rodney,
> Thank you for the very informative message.  It is very useful to know 
> this type of long term strategy.  And this particular case is very 
> interesting.

Heh. Apparently some people misinterpreted what I was saying about
Evolution's current
state, and the apparent direction it is moving in, as a statement of
what the
long-term goals for Evolution actually are. I was just making a
statement, that if you
compare previous versions of evolution to what is currently CVS HEAD,
you'll see that
it has started moving in the direction of totally separate application
UIs, and that
if the component switching buttons are removed in 1.5, you basically get
However, I was not trying to state that there is any definite decision
on what will
happen after we get to 2.2, as that has not been decided yet.

I was just agreeing with the opinion that having the UIs be totally
separate would be
better for usability. And, there are several people that agree with that
type of
thinking. There are also a bunch of people that somehow think "lumping
together into the same thing" somehow constitutes "tighter integration",
and as such,
are against splitting up the UIs.

> Are there bugs for these types of goals?  It might be helpful to have a 
> tracker bug for this.  It might help get more contributers involved.

There are many wishlist bugs in bugzilla. Whether or not they are on par
something we might be doing soon, or even in the long run, is generally
up in the air,
and that is why the wishlist categorization of bugs exists. :)

-- dobey

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]